Jimmy Garrison bootleg

[hdiddy]

I'll go with Occam's razor. He prob duffed it.

[iona bass]

"For me, the length of time he is supposedly "tuned out" is a bit too long to be that lost." damonsmith

"Nobody goes there anymore - It's too crowded! " Yogi Berra.

[Treyzer]

OK, i'll jump in here with both feet. I must be missing the raison d'etre for this incredibly long discussion about a few bars of a well known "warhorse" standard played by Mr. Garrison, who is considered by many to be a jazz giant who played with other jazz giants. What does all this "to do about nothing" signify? Based on what was recorded, one thing or the other happened for a few bars. It may or may not be a musical mistake. Regardless of what transpired, does it change our opinion of Mr. Garrison or what he's contributed to jazz music? Does it make him less of a giant? Does someone really claim to know what Mr. Garrison was thinking while he was playing this part of the tune or any part of the tune for that matter? Why can't we just leave it at: (1) he tried to take it out or (2) he started the bridge a few bars early and leave it at that? Why all the absolutism? Why the incredible need to be right? Is the point of this thread to make the OP and others with absolute conviction feel better about themselves or musically superior in some way? Let's move on.

Great playing is great playing. Even great players may make a few musical faux paus now and zen. For those ready to take up arms in defense of one thing or another, please understand that I'm NOT interested in attacking anyone. I'm just a little mystified that so much time and energy has been taken to argue this very small point. Maybe a few people have just a little too much time on their hands. Guess I'll get back to shedding. Like Miles wrote, "So What"?

[Jason Sypher]

I'll go with that Damon. I think most of us would hear it within two bars and adjust.

[contrabart]

Originally Posted by Treyzer

OK, i'll jump in here with both feet. I must be missing the raison d'etre for this incredibly long discussion about a few bars of a well known "warhorse" standard played by Mr. Garrison, who is considered by many to be a jazz giant who played with other jazz giants. What does all this "to do about nothing" signify? Based on what was recorded, one thing or the other happened for a few bars. It may or may not be a musical mistake. Regardless of what transpired, does it change our opinion of Mr. Garrison or what he's contributed to jazz music? Does it make him less of a giant? Does someone really claim to know what Mr. Garrison was thinking while he was playing this part of the tune or any part of the tune for that matter? Why can't we just leave it at: (1) he tried to take it out or (2) he started the bridge a few bars early and leave it at that? Why all the absolutism? Why the incredible need to be right? Is the point of this thread to make the OP and others with absolute conviction feel better about themselves or musically superior in some way? Let's move on.

Great playing is great playing. Even great players may make a few musical faux paus now and zen. For those ready to take up arms in defense of one thing or another, please understand that I'm NOT interested in attacking anyone. I'm just a little mystified that so much time and energy has been taken to argue this very small point. Maybe a few people have just a little too much time on their hands. Guess I'll get back to shedding. Like Miles wrote, "So What"?

The discussion here was not about Jimmy garrison, or his contribution to jazz. It was about what happened, not why it happened. Anyone with musical training can see AND hear that the bassline played after 8 bars into the chorus we're all talking about fits the bridge like a glove. Why on earth would you keep insisting that it's "taking it out", when it clearly isn't.

[damonsmith]

Originally Posted by contrabart

The discussion here was not about Jimmy garrison, or his contribution to jazz. It was about what happened, not why it happened. Anyone with musical training can see AND hear that the bassline played after 8 bars into the chorus we're all talking about fits the bridge like a glove. Why on earth would you keep insisting that it's "taking it out", when it clearly isn't.

It is clear you are serious musician, but the tunnel vision is where you show the limits of your perspective.
I am not insisting that he is taking it out, I am saying he could be taking it out.
You are the one insisting here - part of what you are insisiting is that Garrison can't hear as well as you can.
There is not single bar in your transcription that wouldn't be out of place for either chord in dozens of recordings by Garrisons peers in that time.

[contrabart]

Originally Posted by damonsmith

It is clear you are serious musician, but the tunnel vision is where you show the limits of your perspective.
I am not insisting that he is taking it out, I am saying he could be taking it out.
You are the one insisting here - part of what you are insisiting is that Garrison can't hear as well as you can.
There is not single bar in your transcription that wouldn't be out of place for either chord in dozens of recordings by Garrisons peers in that time.

You don't know me. So accusing me of tunnel vision on the basis of one discussion seems a bit odd. I could accuse you of the same. Your eagerness for seeing, hearing and playing "outside the box of tradition" blurs your vision so much that you can't use your knowledge of musical theory to see that there is a simple explanation for the bassline played.

[thepontif]

Originally Posted by damonsmith

Only one makes sense to very conservative ears - that is my only point here.

Yeah man. I'm SUPER conservative. I'm like the Rush Limbaugh of the bass. Particularly on Bill Brufords live record, or when I toured with chick, or Mike Stern. I was like Jimmy Blanton on that stuff. Thump thump thump, baby.

If by conservative you mean, not willing to play crap that is clearly not appropriate for the situation, yeah I'm conservative. I, and most everyone else I've ever played with, call that tasteful musicianship.

I understand you think that you deserve your opinion. But it's not a matter of opinion. This situation is cut and dried.

So in a world where music is random and always subject to becoming a total free for all, you're right.

[shwashwa]

im not going to say if jimmy garrison was lost or not, but occasionaly i play with some fairly name or known players, one in particular farily frequently, and he is known for being alble to play inside or with some more "outiside" players. i dont want to give too many clues. anyway, it does happen on occasion where he will get lost in the tune for whatever reason. its happened more than once where it has been his fault, but he refuses to come to you. he will play several choruses and not budge, we have learned over time that we have to come to him. what if you get 2 guys like that on the same gig? no one is saying jimmy didnt hear what was going on, but maybe he thought he wasnt the one who blew the form. maybe he wanted the vibes player to come to him. ive heard some old time guys (who are in the history books) say that just because someone else screws up doesnt mean that i have to screw up too... just sayin'

also, i remember one night i saw branfords group playing have you met miss jones. a standard standard. after maybe 3 or 4 choruses somone blew the form and it was totally screwed for the rest of the tune. they tired to cover it by going more and more out and then reaching a consesus, but each time it seemed that they tried to compensate, they all compensated in different directions and remained lost. it was obviously not a situation of trying to play out. if the sound wasnt enough proof, you could tell by the looks on their faces (bewilderment mixed with anger) and the fact that branford apologized to the audience after the tune.

it happens to the best of them, just sayin'

[damonsmith]

Originally Posted by contrabart

Your eagerness for seeing, hearing and playing "outside the box of tradition" blurs your vision so much that you can't use your knowledge of musical theory to see that there is a simple explanation for the bassline played.

There is a simple explanation - very true. You get an A in jazz theory.
The world is bigger than a jazz theory class and bigger still than jazz theory, and being unwilling to imagine other possibilities is more proof of your limited perspective than your transcription is of Jimmy losing the form.

Still, I am not trying to be insulting, clearly you are are an experienced musician.

[damonsmith]

Originally Posted by thepontif

I, and most everyone else I've ever played with, call that tasteful musicianship.

For sure. The clips on your site clearly back that up, you play the s*** out of both basses. Clearly, you are a fine bassist and musician.
Jimmy was certainly not always tasteful. He'd drop the form, time and everything in the middle tunes to play the same solo he worked on for years whether or not the tune had anything to do with the key of D.

Originally Posted by thepontif

This situation is cut and dried.

It certainly is not.

[JoeWPgh]

People put way too much stock in 'theory'. All 'theory' does is explain why what you just heard, 'works'. When it hasn't been heard before, the theoreticians scramble. In that era, it was sport to make them scramble. Then again, in that era there were some spectacular fails.

[4OnTheFloor]

Originally Posted by iona bass

During the chorus which begins @ 3:42, ( by the 3:50 mark), his note choices become non-supportive of the harmony. ( He sounds "lost " in the form, to me). At the 5:29 mark, ( the Bridge), he gets back on track.

Just listenin', Just sayin'...
Thanks.

I always though that is what made him sound so interesting

[damonsmith]

Originally Posted by contrabart

You don't know me. So accusing me of tunnel vision on the basis of one discussion seems a bit odd.

True, I don't but looking at your bio and youtube links supports your stance on this. Very fine bass playing, though.
I doubt you are much of a fan of the ICP or Maarten Altena, though!

[Treyzer]

Originally Posted by contrabart

The discussion here was not about Jimmy garrison, or his contribution to jazz. It was about what happened, not why it happened. Anyone with musical training can see AND hear that the bassline played after 8 bars into the chorus we're all talking about fits the bridge like a glove. Why on earth would you keep insisting that it's "taking it out", when it clearly isn't.

I did not take a position on what was played one way or the other. If you re-read my post, you'll see that I INSISTED on nothing. However, I did write about the possibility of being open to other points of view, as well as the possibility of being less absolute and dogmatic. What you inferred from my post says far more about you than it does anything else.




BTW, yes I have training and yes I've done a few things.... Nice pictures on your site.

[contrabart]

Originally Posted by damonsmith

There is a simple explanation - very true. You get an A in jazz theory.
The world is bigger than a jazz theory class and bigger still than jazz theory, and being unwilling to imagine other possibilities is more proof of your limited perspective than your transcription is of Jimmy losing the form.

Still, I am not trying to be insulting, clearly you are are an experienced musician.

Of course the world is bigger than jazz (or classical for that matter). And I am not unwilling to imagine other possibilities if I am not sure of what I hear or see. In this case I am sure. That's not limited perspective, that's common sense.

I'm not insulted. However, to me your post comes across as something worse, namely patronizing. Which I'm pretty sure you're not trying to be either. But still.

[contrabart]

Originally Posted by JoeWPgh

All 'theory' does is explain why what you just heard, 'works'. When it hasn't been heard before, the theoreticians scramble. In that era, it was sport to make them scramble. Then again, in that era there were some spectacular fails.

Theory can also explain why thing's don't work. And sometimes theory has to change because things that work can't be explained. That has happened throughout the history of music. In the middle ages a flat fifth didn't work, it was considered the devil's interval. For a long time in classical music parallel fifths weren't allowed, and for a reason. In that context it didn't work. the list goes on and on.
Also, sometimes things that seem random but work are not random at all. Have you ever heard Ned Goold's own work (not with Harry Connick)? When I first heard one of his cd's (Enthropy) I loved it, but most of the time I had no idea what he was doing. I found out (because someone told me, not because I analyzed it) he has a very strict system that is inspired by classical 12 tone systems. Is that why it works? I can't be 100% sure, but it's a good explanation. Maybe I like it also because it swings like crazy.

[contrabart]

Originally Posted by damonsmith

True, I don't but looking at your bio and youtube links supports your stance on this. Very fine bass playing, though.
I doubt you are much of a fan of the ICP or Maarten Altena, though!

I have great respect for Mischa Mengelberg and (especially) Han Bennink. But you know what? Even in their extreme free playing I can still hear that they have a vast knowledge of tradition. It works because what they do makes sense, they're not just doing things for no other reason than exploring. Maybe my lack of knowledge and understanding of free improvised music prohibits me from appreciating it more. But we all have our limitations and hang ups.

[contrabart]

Originally Posted by Treyzer

I did not take a position on what was played one way or the other. If you re-read my post, you'll see that I INSISTED on nothing. However, I did write about the possibility of being open to other points of view, as well as the possibility of being less absolute and dogmatic. What you inferred from my post says far more about you than it does anything else.




BTW, yes I have training and yes I've done a few things.... Nice pictures on your site.

When I wrote "you keep insisting" it was meant as "one would keep insisting", sorry if I wasn't clear in my post. I wasn't accusing you. I agree with what you wrote in your post.
My point was, if we all agree that even the greatest musicians can make a musical faux pas, as you eloquently stated, why is it so hard for some people to admit that Jimmy Garrison did just that on this recording? Maybe that's the reason why it's still a bootleg? Maybe he didn't want it to become public. I know I have tons of recordings of me playing gigs I don't want the world to hear. Maybe this is one of his. Who knows?

I even started to think, from what I know of Jimmy Garrison, he is too good a musician to do what he did on purpose. Because it didn't make sense, musically. Maybe his thoughts wandered off, maybe he made eye contact with a beautiful woman in the audience. We'll never know.

[thepontif]

Originally Posted by damonsmith

There is a simple explanation - very true. You get an A in jazz theory.
The world is bigger than a jazz theory class and bigger still than jazz theory, and being unwilling to imagine other possibilities is more proof of your limited perspective than your transcription is of Jimmy losing the form.

Still, I am not trying to be insulting, clearly you are are an experienced musician.

Dude, it is the real world that screams the reality here...the theory only quantifies it. That gig was just some bs club gig...probably (at the time) a meaningless snippet in time that is now a lucky treasure to have. Very few vibes players ever played that clear or swung that hard...especially in those days.

When you compare jg to any other human, and think about the last time you played a 5 hour club gig starting at 10pm as your second gig of the day, it's pretty easy to imagine that he just spaced.

Believe me, I can imagine many other situations. I also imagine that what happened is the most LIKELY thing. Because the most likely thing is USUALLY what happens.